Clearly, one of the most critical questions of the twenty-first
century concerns why the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were
not prevented. As I outline below, there are numerous aspects regarding
the official stories about September 11th which do not fit
with known facts, which contradict each other, which defy common sense,
and which indicate a pattern of misinformation and coverup. The reports
coming out of Washington do very little to alleviate these concerns.

For example, the Congressional report released on July 25, 2003 by a
joint panel of House and Senate intelligence committees concluded that
9/11 resulted in C.I.A. and F.B.I. "lapses." While
incompetence is frightening enough given a $40 billion budget, it is
simply not consistent with known facts. It is consistent with the
reports from other government scandals such has the Iran Contra Affair
which produced damage control and cover up but not answers to the more
probing questions. But perhaps a comparison to Watergate is more apropos
since we now have twenty-eight pages of this report, which the Bush
Administration refuses to release. The report from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) is believable unless you are seriously
interested in the truth. Under more careful scientific scrutiny, it does
not answer some very important questions.

Newspapers across the country call for an investigation into Bush’s
lies about the reasons for war on Iraq. Many people may accept the fact
of Bush’s false pretext for a war on Arab people in a distant place,
especially after the fact. However, few people will be as accepting if
it is shown that this Administration was complicit in acts of atrocities
against its own people.

The magnitude of the crisis is readily apparent by noting that 9/11
serves as a pretext for a never-ending war against the world, including
preemptive strikes against defenseless, but resource rich countries. It
also serves as a pretext for draconian measures of repression at home,
including the cabinet level Department of Homeland Security and Patriot
Act I, and its sequel. September 11th has become the cause
for numerous other acts from massive increases in military spending and
to a Fast Track Trade Agreement for the President.

To date, investigations stop far too short, the public is left in the
dark on too many questions easily answered, and no one in the Bush
Administration has been held accountable for any actions surrounding the
attacks of September 11, 2001. The National Commission on Terrorists
Attacks Upon the United States, which was formed at the insistence of
the family of some of the victims, is continuing to hold hearings and a
final report is expected by May, 2004.
It remains to be seen if, after a two-year lapse, they can come
closer to the truth about September 11th. I believe that this
would only happen if public pressure were brought to bear and
accountability demanded from the Bush Administration. Accountability for
any atrocity should attract the attention of serious investigative
reporters, media critics and even news commentators. That is their
chosen responsibility. Who is to raise the question of why journalists
and others in the mass media are failing the people of the U.S. and the
world?

In this article, I outline twenty-two items of evidence and
questions, each one sufficient reason to demand an investigation into
why September 11th was not prevented. Together, these items
suggest that the most plausible explanation of events is that the Bush
Administration was complicit in the terrorist attacks. This should be a
national and international scandal.What is being discovered will shock many people, which is one of
the reasons for deliberate corporate media coverup. But a significant
number of people within the U.S. see (or will see) the consistencies in
the events surrounding 9/11 as described below, and what they know about
U.S. foreign policy. Nevertheless, the degree to which this
Administration is pursuing a course of world domination at any cost is
unprecedented. One of the best ways of putting a halt to this
destructive course is to expose the Bush Administration and insist on
their accountability to the American people. Thus, the intent of this
article is to help fill the void in the media on the issue of the Bush
Administration’s complicity in 9/11.

Here is the official story: On the morning of September 11, 2001 four
Boeing passenger jets were hijacked within an hour by nineteen Arab
terrorists armed with boxcutters. Pilots among these terrorists took
control of the commercial planes and changed course toward targets in
New York City and Washington D.C. Two of the planes were deliberately
crashed into the Twin Towers, causing fires within the towers, which
melted the steel support structures, thereby causing the buildings to
collapse completely. A third plane was deliberately crashed into the
Pentagon. Passengers on the fourth plane overpowered the hijackers and
caused the plane to crash in Pennsylvania. This was an attack on America
planned and directed by Osama bin Laden as the leader of Al-Qaeda, a
previously obscure anti-U.S. international terrorist organization
composed mainly of Arabs. This story cries out for further explanations,
but nothing official is forthcoming. People are simply expected to
believe the official version without question.

Evidence of Complicity by the Bush Administration in 9/11
Terrorist Attacks

The following twenty-two separate and related points, citing evidence
requiring further investigation, and include questions that demand
answers, were formulated on the basis of the information from the
several sources cited at the end, which should be consulted for
verification and documentation. These sources contain extensive detailed
information and analysis beyond what is provided in this summary. I hope
that this information will incite public outrage leading to full
accountability.

1) The entire United States intelligence community knew of the
9/11 attacks before hand, including the fact that commercial jets were
to be used as bombs; they also knew the approximate dates and possible
targets but were called off their investigations. Western
intelligence had been aware of plans for such terrorist attacks on U.S.
soil as early as 1995. The plan was known as "Project Bojinka."
It was known to both the CIA and FBI and was described in court
documents in the trial in New York of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad for
their participation in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC).

Seven to eight weeks prior to September 11th, all internal
U.S. security agencies were warned of the impending Al-Qaeda attacks.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was warned of the attack but
did nothing to beef up security. At least two weeks prior to September
11th the FBI agents again confirmed that an attack on lower
Manhattan was imminent. However, the FBI agents were commanded to cut
short their investigations into the attacks and those involved. Agents
were threatened with prosecution under the National Security Act if they
publicized information pertaining to their investigations. Some field
agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th.

As early as 1997, Russia, France, Israel, the Philippines and Egypt
all warned the U.S. of the possibility of the attack. Warning also came
from came from several others sources as well. Recently (May 25, 2002),
CBS revealed that President Bush had been warned in an intelligence
briefing on August 6, 2001that bin Laden might be planning to hijack
commercial planes for a domestic attack in the U.S.

2) There is incontrovertible evidence that the US Air Force all
across the country was comprehensively "stood down" on the
morning of September 11th. Routine security measures,
normally in place, which may well have been able to prevent the attacks,
or reduce their impact, were suspended for one hour while the attacks
were in progress, and re-instated once they were over. Sequence of
events:

8:46 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston smashed into the
north tower of the WTC. The tower collapses at 10:28 a.m.

9:03 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston smashed into the
south tower. It completely collapses at 9:59am.

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation about 10 miles
from the Pentagon. On September 11th there were two entire
squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. They failed to do
their job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. Despite over one
hour’s advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single
Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the
military have cooperative procedures enabling fighter jets to
automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions.
They do not need instructions from the White House to carry out these
procedures, yet they were not followed.

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45
a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground
control and radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its
assigned path of flight. Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately
called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons,
and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point an
emergency was undeniably clear. Yet, according to NORAD's official
timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m.
Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m., a full 32
minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11.

Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same pattern of delays in
notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are
difficult to imagine considering a plane had, by this time, already hit
the WTC. The plane striking the pentagon is particularly spectacular.
After it was known that the plane had a problem, it was nevertheless
able to change course and fly towards Washington, for about 45 minutes,
fly past the White House, and crash into the Pentagon, without any
attempt at interception. All the while two squadrons of fighter aircraft
were stationed just 10 miles from the eventual target. Unless one is
prepared to allege collusion, such a scenario is not possible by any
stretch of the imagination.

3) Neither the Joint Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense nor
the President of the United States acted according to well established
emergency protocols. Acting Joint Chief of Staff General Richard B.
Myers stated that he saw a TV report about a plane hitting the WTC but
thought it was a small plane. So he went ahead with his meeting. By the
time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit. Whose
responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of
Staff?

The Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was at his desk when AA77
crashed into the Pentagon. How is it possible that the National Military
Command Center, located in the Pentagon and in contact with law
enforcement and air traffic controllers from 8:46 a.m., did not
communicate to the Secretary of Defense, also at the Pentagon, about the
other hijacked planes especially the one headed to Washington? After he
was notified, why did he go to the war room?

The actions of the President, while the attacks were occurring,
indicate that he deliberately avoided doing anything reasonably expected
of a President wanting to protect American citizens and property. Why
didn't the Secret Service inform him of this national emergency? When is
a President supposed to be notified of everything the agencies know? Why
was the President permitted by the Secret Service to remain in the
Sarasota elementary school? At 9.05, nineteen minutes after the first
attack and two minutes after the second attack on the WTC, Andrew Card,
the presidential chief of staff, whispered something in President Bush’s
ear. The president did not react as if he was interested in trying to do
something about the situation. He did not leave the school, convene an
emergency meeting, consult with anybody, or intervene in any way, to
ensure that the Air Force completed it’s job. He did not even mention
the extraordinary events occurring in New York, but simply continued
with the reading class. His own explanations of his actions that day
contradict known facts.

In the case of a national emergency, seconds of indecision could cost
thousands of lives; and it's precisely for this reason that the
government has a whole network of adjuncts and

advisors to insure that these top officials are among the first to be
informed, not the last. Where were these individuals who did not
properly inform the top officials?

In short, the CIA, the DCI, the State Department, the President, and
key figures around him in the White House, were ultimately responsible
for doing nothing in the face of the mounting evidence of an
impending threat to U.S. national security. Incompetence is a highly
improbable explanation.

4) Prior to 9/11, the US intelligence agencies should have stopped
the nineteen terrorists from entering this country for intelligence
reasons, alone. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers' visas should have
been unquestionably denied because their applications were incomplete
and incorrect. Most of the 19 hijackers were young, unmarried, and
un-employed males. They were, in short, the "classic over-stay
candidates". A seasoned former Consular officer stated in the National
Review magazine, "Single, idle young adults with no specific
destination in the United States rarely get visas absent compelling
circumstances."

There are several cases damaging to the credibility of the official
accounts of 9/11. But the U.S. response to Mohamed Atta, the alleged
lead hijacker, is most extraordinary. The FBI had been monitoring Atta’s
movements for several months in 2000. According to PBS’ Frontlines,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to stop Atta from
entering the U.S. three times on a tourist visa in 2001, even though
officials knew the visa had expired in 2000, and that Atta had violated
its terms by taking flight lessons. Furthermore, Atta had already been
implicated in a terrorist bombing in Israel, with the information passed
on to the United States before he was first issued his tourist visa.

5) How did many of the hijackers receive clearance for training at
secure U.S. military and intelligence facilities, and for what purposes?
Many of the terrorist pilots received their initial training in Venice,
Florida at one of two flight schools of highly questionable credibility
and with approval of US intelligence. Mohamed Atta had attended
International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery,
Alabama; Abdulaziz Alomari had attended Aerospace Medical School at
Brooks Air Force base in Texas; Saeed Alghamdi had been to the Defense
Language Institute in Monterey, California. These are all names of
identified hijackers, so why has the U.S. government attempted to deny
the match? As early as three days after the 9/11 attacks, FBI Director
Robert S. Mueller III claimed that these findings were new and had not
been known by the FBI previously. This claim is a lie.

Zacarias Moussaouri was arrested after his flight trainers at the
Minnesota flight school, Pan Am International Flight Academy, reported
highly suspicious behavior. He was greatly unqualified; he wanted to
learn to fly a 747 but wasn’t interested in takeoffs or landings; he
was traveling on a French passport, said he was from France, but could
not speak French. When

contacted, the French said he was a suspected terrorist connected to
Al-Qaeda. However, a special counter terrorism panel of the FBI and CIA
reviewed the case and dismissed it.

There are numerous glaring anomalies, illegalities and scandals
connected with Wally Hilliard and Rudi Dekker’s
Huffman Aviation School at Venice, Florida where other hijackers
trained. Dekkers had no aviation experience and was under indictment in
his native country, The Netherlands, on financial charges. He purchased
his aviation school at just about the time the terrorist pilots moved
into town and began their lessons. He has yet to be investigated even
though he initially trained most of the hijackers.

Britannia Aviation was awarded a five-year contract to run a large
regional maintenance facility at Lynchburgat a time when the
company virtually had no assets, employees, or corporate history and did
not posses the necessary FAA license needed to perform the maintenance.
Britannia was a company with known CIA connections. It was operating
illegally out of Huffman Aviation, the flight school which trained Al-Qaeda
hijackers and was given a "green light" from the Justice
Department’s Drugs Enforcement Administration, and the local Venice
Police Department was warned to "leave them alone." Why?

6) How were the hijackers able to get specifically contraband
items such as box-cutters, pepper spray and, according to one FAA
executive summary, a gun on those planes? On the morning of
September 11th, when the 19 hijackers went to purchase their
tickets and to receive their boarding passes, nine were singled out and
questioned through a screening process. But they passed the screening
process and were allowed to continue on with their mission.

7) At a time when the U.S. intelligence community was on alert for
an imminent Al-Qaeda attack, the Bush Administration made it easier for
Saudi visitors to come to the U.S. under a program called U.S. Visa
Express, introduced four months before September 11th. Michael
Springmann, former head of the Visa Bureau at the U.S. Consulate in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia said that he was repeatedly ordered by high-level
State Departtment officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants.
His complaints to higher authorities at several agencies went
unanswered. In a CBC interview, he indicated that the CIA was indeed
complicit in the attacks.

8) Most of the hijackers were Saudis, as is Osama bin Laden, and
the Saudi Arabian government is known to give financial support to
terrorist organizations. Why is Iraq and not Saudi Arabia a target if
the US government is concerned about terrorism? Saudi Arabia’s
government cooperates with US oil and arms industries; Iraq did not.
Iraq is forced to now, of course. At least fifteen of the far-flung
network of terrorist pilots received their money from the same source.
There is specific evidence that Osama bin Laden continues to receive
extensive support, not only from members of his own family, but also
from members of the Saudi establishment. A New Statesman report
stated that "Bin Laden and his gang are just the tentacles; the
head lies safely in Saudi Arabia, protected by U.S. forces." The
hijackers responsible for 9/11 were not illiterate, bearded fanatics
from Afghanistan. They were all educated, highly skilled, middle-class
professionals. Of the 19 men involved, 13 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

9) Why were the FBI called off its investigation of Osama bin
Laden and the Saudi Royal Family prior to 9/11? Moreover, why were the
FBI Agents ordered to curtail their investigation of these attacks on
October 10, 2001? The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been
muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected
to Bin Laden and Al Qeada. One law enforcement official was quoted as
saying, "The investigative staff has to be made to understand that
we’re not trying to solve a crime now." FBI Agents are said to be
in the process of filing a law suit agents the Agency for the right to
go public.

10) Osama Bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the attacks
within a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any
intelligence to have been gathered which supported the accusation. That
is, it would be impossible if they did not already have that
information. How could they have had no warning of an operation,
which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be
able to name the culprit in less than a day? And if they had some
forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises
even more questions about government agencies’ complicity.

It is not logical that Bin Laden was involved, and actually
impossible, unless he was involved in the capacity of collusion with US
authorities, or at best, in the context of the US knowing all along what
he was up to, and deliberately allowing him to do it. The point has
already been made that if he was involved, then it cannot have been a
surprise, which in turn, points to the President and others in his
administration.

From day one, there has not been a shred of publicly available
evidence against Bin Laden. Up until mid December, there was nothing but
the continued repetition of his name. The official documents detailing
allegations against Bin Laden provide no convincing evidence. Of the 69
points of "evidence" cited, ten relate to background
information about the relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban.
Fifteen relate to background information regarding the general
philosophies of Al Qeada, and it's relationship to Bin Laden. None give
any facts concerning the events of 9/11. Most do not even attempt to
directly relate anything mentioned to the events of that day. Twenty-six
list allegations related to previous terrorist attacks. Even if they
were convictions of previous terrorist attacks, everybody knows that
this isn't worth the paper it's written on, in terms of evidence for
involvement of September 11th.

Within less than four hours of the attacks taking place, the media
were fed comments, which assumed Bin Laden's guilt, comments made on the
basis of events, which could not possibly have occurred. The Pentagon
and the Department of Defense used dialogue attributed to Bin Laden, in
an effort to incriminate him, while refusing to release all of the
dialogue, and refusing to issue a verbatim, literal translation. Why was
it considered necessary to lie, in order to create a case against Bin
Laden? The truth could well implicate the Bush administration.

11) Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency (ISI) was indirectly involved
in September 11th. The links between Al Qaeda, Pakistan’s
ISI and the CIA; and, between the ISI, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban
Axis are a matter of public record. Pakistan has also long been a
supporter of Al Qeada. The Pakistani ISI (secret service) has been a
mechanism by which the CIA indirectly channeled support to Al Qeada and
has been used by successive US administrations as a
"go-between." Pakistan's military-intelligence apparatus
constitutes the core institutional support to both Osama's Al Qaeda and
the Taliban. Without this institutional support, there would be no
Taliban government in Kabul. In turn, without the unbending support of
the US government, there would be no powerful military-intelligence
apparatus in Pakistan.

It was reported that ISI’s Director-General, General Mahmoud Ahmad,
had funneled $100,000 to the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, shortly before
September 11th. The U.S. government protected him, and
itself, by asking him to resign quietly after the discovery, thus
blocking a further inquiry and a potential scandal. In the wake of 9/11,
the Bush Administration consciously sought the "cooperation"
of the ISI, which had been supporting and abetting Osama bin Laden and
the Taliban. In other words, the Bush Administration's relations with
Pakistan's ISI, including its "consultations" with General
Mahmoud Ahmad in the week prior to September 11th, raise the
issue of "cover-up" as well as "complicity". While
Ahmad was talking to U.S. officials at the CIA and the Pentagon, the ISI
allegedly had contacts with the 9/11terrorists.

12) The USA and Bin Laden are not the enemies they pretend to be.
It is established beyond doubt that senior members of the Bush
administration have close links to the Bin Laden Family and this
relationship is still going on behind the scenes. In fact, there is
plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that Bin Laden, may have
had something to do with 9/11, but the problem is that it also
implicates the Bush Administration, the CIA, George Bush Senior,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates.

It is well known that Bin Laden’s close working relationship with
the CIA began in the 1980’s. The claim is that they have since fallen
out, but this story is a lie. According to the mainstream media spin,
this is OK, because the rest of the family has disowned Osama for his
terrorist activities and anti-US views. This spin is also a lie.

The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply
confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the "Islamic
Militant Network". Since the end of the Cold War these covert
intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have become
increasingly sophisticated.

13) How was it possible for the World Trade Center’s two towers
to have completely collapsed as a result of two jet planes? The towers
in fact stood for forty-five and ninety minutes after the crashes. The
official story is that the burning jet fuel caused the steel girders
supporting them to melt. However, there is simply no credibly
scientific evidence to support this story. The WTC towers were designed
to take the impact of a Boeing 707. It is highly unlikely that fire from
the jet fuel could have melted the steel girders. This is especially
true of the South tower since the plane did not hit it directly.
Therefore most of the fuel did not fall inside the building. The South
Tower was hit second and fell first. Both towers collapsed evenly and
smoothly in a manner consistent with that caused by a planned
demolition. Based upon scientific evidences, photos and videos of the
event, and reports of scientists, the WTC architect and engineers, it is
highly unlikely that the Towers collapsed because of burning jet fuel
rather than demolition. There are also serious questions regarding the
collapse of the building known as WTC7. It is also noteworthy that
ownership of the WTC changed hands several months earlier because if the
towers collapsed because of inside demolition, such accomplishment would
require cooperation from the extensive WTC security forces.

14) Why was Bin Laden not captured before 9/11, and why has he not
been captured since? There have been several opportunities to capture
Osama bin Laden, but no effort to do so was made. Two US allies,
Saudi Arabia, and The United Arab Emirates, have colluded in
deliberately allowing Bin Laden to stay free. Bin Laden was meeting with
the CIA as late as July 2001. An examination of U.S. attempts to capture
Osama bin Laden show they have in fact consistently blocked attempts to
investigate and capture him. Eleven bin Laden family members were flown
safely out of the same Boston airport where the highjacking took place a
few days earlier. Why were they not detained for questioning?

15) The September 11th disaster has resulted in power
and profit at home and abroad by both the Bin Laden and the Bush
families. There are significant business ties between Bin Laden and
senior members of the Bush administration. Reports have emerged that
Carlyle Group, the giant U.S. defence contractor that employs former
President George W. Bush Sr., has had long-standing financial ties to
the bin Laden family. So while there is compelling evidence that Osama
bin Laden has not broken away from his family, it is also a matter of
record that the Bush administration is in turn very significantly tied
to the same family. The Carlyle Group has profited immensely from the
wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and from the militarization of U.S. foreign
policy.

16) Revelations of profits made by insider trading relating to the
9/11 attacks, point to the top levels of US business and the CIA. The
intelligence community regularly analyzes financial transactions for any
suspicious activity. Only three trading days before September 11th,
shares of American and United Airlines -- the companies whose planes
were hijacked in the attacks on New York and Washington -- were
massively "sold short" by investors. Executive CIA Director AB
"Buzzy" Krongard was one of those who profited from the deal.
The names of the other investors remain undisclosed and the $5 million
in profit taking remains unclaimed in the Chicago Exchange account. No
similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in
the day immediately preceding Black Tuesday. There were also unusual
trades on several companies occupying the World Trade Center, including
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and Merrill Lynch & Co. These
multiple, massive and unprecedented financial transactions point
unequivocally to the fact that the investors behind these trades were
speculating in anticipation of a mid-September 2001 catastrophe that
would involve both United and American Airlines and offices in the Twin
Towers. To date, both the Securities & Exchange Commission and the
FBI have been tight-lipped about their investigations of trades. A probe
could isolate the investors. Why has nothing been made public?

17) Selected persons were told not to fly that day. Newsweek
reported that on September 10th, "a group of top
Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning,
apparently because of security concerns." Why was that same
information not made available to the 266 people who died aboard the
four hijacked commercial aircraft? A significant number of selected
people were warned about flying or reporting for work at the WTC. San
Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a phone call eight hours before
the hijacking warning him not to travel by air. Salman Rushdie is under
a 24-hour protection of UK Scotland yard; he was also prevented from
flying that day. Ariel Sharon canceled his address to Israeli support
groups in New York City just the day before his scheduled September 11th
address. John Ashcroft stopped flying on public airplanes in July of
2001.

Other evidence exists indicating that government officials knew of
the attacks beforehand. For example, Tom Kenny who was with a rescue
squad from FEMA told Dan Rather of CBS News that, "We arrived on
Monday night (September 10th) and went into action of
Tuesday." How is it possible for high government officials to have
been caught by surprise as some claimed?

18) There are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the U.S.
attack on Afghanistan was already planned before September 11th.
A pretext for war is always needed. From investigative journalist
Patrick Martin, "[t]his examination has found that a specific war
on Afghanistan . . . launched in October 2001 had been planned for at
least a year, and in general terms related to regional strategic and
economic interests, had actually been rooted in at least four years of
strategic planning. This planning, in turn, is the culmination of a
decade of regional strategizing. All that was required was a trigger for
these war plans, which was amply provided by the tragic events of 11th
September."

It is public knowledge that Unocal and others in the oil industry
were negotiating with Afghan officials for a pipeline across their
country as part of the "Silk Road" strategy. It was also
reported that the talks had broken down. A specific threat made at a
meeting: the Taliban can choose between a "carpets of bombs" -
an invasion - or a "carpets of gold" – the oil and gas
pipelines. Experts agree that Central Asia and the Caspian Basin are
central to energy in the 21st century and that energy is
central to political, economic and military power. James Dorian noted in
the Oil & Gas Journal: "Those who control the oil routes
out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of
flow and the distribution of revenues from new production" (cited
in Ahmed, 2002, p. 69).

The plans for global domination developed by those of Project for the
New American Century, a neoconservative think tank formed in the Spring
of 1997, are also a matter of public record. These plans included
specifics for taking military control of Central Asia, including regime
change in Iraq. The primary architects of these plans include Paul
Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, all part
of the first Bush Administration ousted by Bill Clinton and now back in
power with George W. Bush.

19) The 9/11 attacks came at an extremely fortuitous time for the
Bush administration, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, the weapons
industry, and the oil industry, all of which have benefited immensely
from this tragedy. It is worth noting the acute observations of
Canadian social philosopher John McMurtry: "To begin with, the
forensic principle of ‘who most benefits from the crime?’ clearly
points in the direction of the Bush administration. . . . The more you
review the connections and the sweeping lapse of security across so many
coordinates, the more the lines point backwards [to the White
House]."

20) Both the U.S. and the USSR are responsible for the rise of
religious extremism, terrorism and civil war within Afghanistan since
the 1980s. The U.S., however, is directly responsible for the
cultivation of a distorted ‘jihadi’ ideology that fueled, along with
U.S. arms and training, the ongoing war and acts of terrorism within the
country after the withdrawal of Soviet forces.

21) The Bush Administration is clearly capable of creating or
allowing such atrocities to occur.Hitler was able to play the anti-communist card to win over
skeptical German industrialists. Certainly the Bush family are not
newcomers to melding political and business interests, they got their
start as key Hitler supporters. Prescott Bush, father of George Bush
Sr., was Hitler’s banker and propaganda manager in New York, until FDR
confiscated his holdings.George Bush Sr. used Manuel Noriega as a scapegoat, killing
thousands of innocent Panamanians in the process of re-establishing U.S.
control over Panama. It is also widely believed that the current Bush
Administration knowingly misled the people about the war in Iraq.

22) There are precedents for these kinds of acts of complicity and
fabrications. Rejecting claim that the evidence for collusion is
over-ruled by a belief that no country would do this to its own
citizens, simply requires pointing out that the contemplation of
terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens by the CIA is a matter of public
record. The previously classified "Operation Northwoods"
document reveals that in 1962, the CIA seriously considered the
possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks against US citizens, in
order to blame it on Cuba. The plans were never implemented, but were
given approval signatures by all the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan
included several options, including killing Cuban defectors or U.S.
soldiers, sinking ships, and staging simulations of planes being shot
down. All this was done to blame on Castro as a pretext for launching a
war against Cuba.

Far from being an unprecedented shocker, suspected government
complicity in 9/11 builds on an august and cynical tradition. "It’s
the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times." Examples
of democracy being hoaxed include the sinking of the Maine, Pearl Harbor
bombardment,which
President Roosevelt is believed to have known about beforehand, and the
hoax of the Gulf of Tonkin provocation.

Conclusions

The evidence seems clear that if the many agencies of the U.S.
government had done their jobs, the September 11th attack
would likely have been prevented. If there had been an immediate
investigation into the September 11th attacks, the wars on
Afghanistan and Iraq could not have been justified simply on the basis
of terrorism. Surely questions must be asked about why there is yet no
accountability of the Bush administration and why the journalists and
others in mass media are not held responsible for the coverup, deception
and lack of investigative reporting.
From the evidence presented it would seem that much public
whistle-blowing ought to be taking place. Why is it not yet evident?

I believe that it is important not to approach 9/11 as the
possibility of some grand conspiracy, but a possible conspiracy of some
sort nevertheless. One important insight is how hierarchical
authoritarian social systems function. Top down directives and commands,
especially if they carry the weight of threats of censorship and
punishment serve to keep any dissent in check. There is a great deal of
self-censorship operating in all institutions in the United States. It
is also important to recognize the role of a shared ideology among the
decision makers, or perhaps more specifically the
role of what social psychologists, in studies of organizational
behavior, call "groupthink." Groupthink is decision making
characterized by uncritical acceptance of and conformity with the
prevailing view. Thus, the will of a few key persons can be spread
within and across government agencies.

Thus the possibility of complicity on the part of the Bush
Administration is very real. At the very least, further and more honest
investigations must take place and some accountability exacted from
those responsible.

The executive branch of the federal government has apparently
enabled a lethal surprise attack with mass murder against two of the
founding thirteen colonies, New York and Virginia. By such an act,
the federal government would grossly violate and void its contract
with the states, and abrogate its own constitutional rights and
privileges. Even if you do not accept the complicity argument, it
has failed to protect its largest city from the consequences of its
overweening foreign policies.

Like a loose handgun, our Federal government has backfired on its
owners, the States. The executive has gone to war in defiance of the
Constitution, and Congress has abdicated its war-making authority on
at least 200 occasions since 1945, according to the Federation of
American Scientists. The federal government has proven utterly
incapable and unwilling to remedy its chronic and world-threatening
sickness (p. 376-377).

It seems apropos to conclude: "if you are part of the problem,
then you are not part of the solution." The solution then lies with
the people themselves and not with any US government agency, least of
all the Executive Branch.

Sources

Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq (2002). The war on freedom: How and why
America was attacked September 11, 2001. Joshua Tree, CA: Tree of
Life Publications. AThe
War on Freedom rips apart the veil of silence surrounding 9/11, and
lets readers look at the facts for themselves. This riveting and
thoroughly documented study [718 citations] is a "must"
resource for everyone seeking to understand the attack on the World
Trade Center of New York on September 11, 2001 and "America’s New
War."

Bamford, James (2001).Body of secrets : anatomy of the ultra-secret National
Security Agency : from the Cold War through the dawn of a new century.
New York: Doubleday, 2001. See for detailed information on Operation
Northwood and other "secrets."

Burbach, Roger, & Clarke, Ben (Eds.) (2002). September 11 and
the U.S. war: Beyond the curtain of smoke. San Francisco: City Light
Books. This is an anthology of 41 short pieces by more than 30 authors
who dissent from the bellicose actions of the U.S. government since
9-11-01. These essays provide the essential background and analysis
needed to understand the origins and consequences of the attack of
September 11th and the U.S. government’s response.

Chossudovsky, Michel (2002). War and globalisation: The truth
behind September 11. London: Zed Books. "In this timely study,
Michel Chossudovsky blows away the smokescreen, put up by the mainstream
media, that 9-11 was an ‘intelligence failure’. Through meticulous
research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the
September 11 attacks, and the coverup and complicity of key members of
the Bush Administration."

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/.
See especially the testimony of Mindy Kleinberg, Stephen Push and others
on the First Public Hearings Archives, p. 163.

Thompson, Paul: http://cooperativeresearch.org.
See "USpreparing forawarwith
Afghanistan before 9/11, increasing control ofAsia
before &since" and several other
articles.

http://emperors-clothes.com.

See several short articles by
Jared Israel, John Flaherty, Illarion Bykov, Francisco Gil-White and
George Szamuely.